: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:17 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

Up till now, Platt, Nero, Sykes, Godwin and Jeffries have not done enough and they need to push on.

Lynch, Newton, Burgess, Deacon, Langley, Cook have nothing to do with his signing policy.

Tadulala has gone well, Morrison was a good signing (but a tad injury prone) and Bird and Menzies look shrewd.

Solomona has generally failed to deliver the "X Factor" that McNamara signed him for, Finnigan was average at best, Feather was a dud and Tupou has been worse than Feather was.

However......

The top five players I mentioned must do better this season, and alongside the one or two quality players we now have, we could do a lot better, especially, as I mentioned earlier that I believe that our rivals are weaker this year than last.

Obviously the jury will also be out on Worrincy and Sheriffe.

But yeah, generally his signings HAVE been poor for us, but if he and they can rectify this then we MAY finish in the top 2.

you really are clutching at straws now eddie

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:54 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

In the case of Scruton, Menzies and Bird, ££££££££££££££'s. Worrincy and Sheriffe just could not believe their luck.

I see, you believe the first 3 are here for nothing but the money. They'd have gone to Gateshead for another tenner. OK

And you think Worrincy and Sheriffe are rubbish signings. OK

mystic eddie wrote:

As I said on the other thread, I reckon we can finish second because the standard of the other sides around us seems to have dropped somewhat.

All got better coaches, but their standards have dropped. So despite our useless coach we'll beat the lot. OK

mystic eddie wrote:

We may well finish second, but, for fear of hedging my bets, we could also finish about sixth.

You forgot 1,3,4,6,7,8,9,10.......

mystic eddie wrote:

The fact is, I believe we have the PLAYERS at the club that are capable of finishing in the top two.

these being the players that you have so roundly derided for the last year. The players that you have castigated McNamara for signing from your idea of crap clubs. Players who are not good enough, who 'can't believe their luck'. OK

mystic eddie wrote:

However, I still remain unconvinced that we have the COACH in order to do so.

Really? Well why have you never said so before?

mystic eddie wrote:

... Chelsea .... Avram Grant ...

And now you are comparing our squad to Chelsea of recent past. The final proof that you have lost the plot. If you ever had it.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:18 am  

mat wrote:

you really are clutching at straws now eddie

Eh?????

What is incorrect with my assessment with the players?

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:22 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And now you are comparing our squad to Chelsea of recent past. The final proof that you have lost the plot. If you ever had it.

Now you talk about losing the plot? You said that that a team needs an excellent coach in order to finish second in the table. I pointed out that Avram Grant did it and he was a complete dud whom the Chelsea fans wanted out ASAP. I did not compare our squad to Chelsea's (despite you making up the fact that I did). I was merely highlighting your point about coaches and giving a case against the argument.

Come on, if you have to pick holes in every opinion I give, at least do not resort to making things up that were never actually said. It really does you no favours whatsoever.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:50 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

:?

Now you talk about losing the plot? You said that that a team needs an excellent coach in order to finish second in the table.

It does

mystic eddie wrote:

I pointed out that Avram Grant did it and he was a complete dud

Except, of course, he was anything but. But you would have to be an unbiased observer to note this.

mystic eddie wrote:

whom the Chelsea fans wanted out ASAP.

Are you a Chelsea fan too? Who the fans want out rarely makes any difference.

mystic eddie wrote:

I did not compare our squad to Chelsea's (despite you making up the fact that I did). I was merely highlighting your point about coaches and giving a case against the argument.

Either you made a valid comparison or you didn't. Which is it? Either you were comparing Grant at Chelsea with McNamara at Bradford, or you weren't. If the actual sports teams involved don't count in the comparison, then it's a bonkers analogy, isn't it?

The reality is that Chelsea's performance in the Grant year clearly demonstrated that, while his persona and personality did not endear him to anyone, Grant clearly proved that he is a top class soccer coach.

But let's consider Grant's case in a bit more detail. It's worth it, because you are using the coach with the best winning ratio in the history of Chelsea FCas an example of a dud coach. You are using the case of a man who in the space of only a few months, in taking over the hottest of seats from the revered Mourinho, inherited a team which was in sixth place in the Premier League. They were negative and boring and had just had that pisspoor draw with Rosenborg. They were transformed under Grant, they finished second, in what Grant turned around into a battle that went to the wire. Personally I am sure that if he had had the team from day one, they would have beaten Man U to the title, but the handicap of coming from sixth place proved just a fraction too much.

You are clearly implying that Grant is a worse coach than Mourinho (at least) yet in the previous 3 years, Mourinho had never got Chelsea to a Champions League Final. Avram Grant did, and they only lost the Final on penalties.

And you are the man calling him "a dud coach"!!!

I think I can see where you are coming from, though. The error you make is that you don't judge Grant by what he actually achieved, you don't consider his actual performance. You are assessing Grant on nothing else but the basis that you don't like him.

mystic eddie wrote:

Come on, if you have to pick holes in every opinion I give,

You do know this is a discussion board, right? What are they for?

You also know that you pretty much never respond to the holes that I pick, which leaves your arguments resembling a 50 year old fishnet.

I don't "have" to pick holes, there are more holes in your arguments than in a Swiss cheese factory. And of course if there were no holes to pick . . .

mystic eddie wrote:

at least do not resort to making things up that were never actually said. It really does you no favours whatsoever.

I make nothing up. In closing, as is your typical MO, you invent a position and then argue from that. Now that is making things up that were never actually said. It really does you no favours whatsoever.

And in keeping with your MO, you haven't (as ever) answered on a single hole that I picked. Which is presumably because although you bluster, privately you must know they were good and fair points.

And as you will completely ignore the above points, which as ever, you can't answer.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:59 am  

Perhaps Eddie should consult this: RLFANS Dictionary Ferocious Aardvark Old school RSRLer previously trading under names such as "Russell Smith's Mother" and, latterly "Russell Smith's Optician". Entering debate with FA has widely been considered ill-advised, if only because even on occasion when he is on weak ground, his inability to concede defeat will ensure a lengthy and not very productive debate over mundane minutiae, much of it stored away in his vast and complex series of spreadsheets maintained in seemingly great (although not 100% accurate on occasion) detail. A Bulls fan, FA considers the Bradford forum his own personal fiefdom.

Perhaps Eddie should consult this: RLFANS Dictionary Ferocious Aardvark Old school RSRLer previously trading under names such as "Russell Smith's Mother" and, latterly "Russell Smith's Optician". Entering debate with FA has widely been considered ill-advised, if only because even on occasion when he is on weak ground, his inability to concede defeat will ensure a lengthy and not very productive debate over mundane minutiae, much of it stored away in his vast and complex series of spreadsheets maintained in seemingly great (although not 100% accurate on occasion) detail. A Bulls fan, FA considers the Bradford forum his own personal fiefdom.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:02 am  

Is this thread now defunct with the news of the latest signing?

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:03 pm  

Trimalchio wrote: Perhaps Eddie should consult this: RLFANS Dictionary Ferocious Aardvark Old school RSRLer previously trading under names such as "Russell Smith's Mother" and, latterly "Russell Smith's Optician". Entering debate with FA has widely been considered ill-advised, if only because even on occasion when he is on weak ground, his inability to concede defeat will ensure a lengthy and not very productive debate over mundane minutiae, much of it stored away in his vast and complex series of spreadsheets maintained in seemingly great (although not 100% accurate on occasion) detail. A Bulls fan, FA considers the Bradford forum his own personal fiefdom. How very very true.

Trimalchio wrote: Perhaps Eddie should consult this: RLFANS Dictionary Ferocious Aardvark Old school RSRLer previously trading under names such as "Russell Smith's Mother" and, latterly "Russell Smith's Optician". Entering debate with FA has widely been considered ill-advised, if only because even on occasion when he is on weak ground, his inability to concede defeat will ensure a lengthy and not very productive debate over mundane minutiae, much of it stored away in his vast and complex series of spreadsheets maintained in seemingly great (although not 100% accurate on occasion) detail. A Bulls fan, FA considers the Bradford forum his own personal fiefdom. How very very true.

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:05 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

:lol:

How very very true.

What's up Eddie - cat got your tongue?

: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:13 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

What's up Eddie - cat got your tongue?

Certainly no chance of it getting yours. It is too far up McNamara's rectum.